Cuyahoga Valley National Park Visitor Study Summer 2005

Social Science Program National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Visitor Services Project Cuyahoga Valley National Park Visitor Study Summer 2005 Park Studies Unit Visitor Services Project Report 171

Social Science Program National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Visitor Services Project Cuyahoga Valley National Park Visitor Study Summer 2005 Yen Le Bret H. Meldrum Margaret A. Littlejohn Steven J. Hollenhorst Visitor Services Project Report 171 May 2006 Dr. Yen Le is the National Park Service (NPS) Visitor Services Project (VSP) Assistant Coordinator, Bret Meldrum is a research assistant for the NPS VSP, Margaret Littlejohn is the NPS VSP Coordinator, and Dr. Steven Hollenhorst is the Director of the Park Studies Unit (PSU), Department of Conservation Social Sciences, University of Idaho. We thank the staff and volunteers of Cuyahoga Valley NP for their assistance with this study. The VSP acknowledges Public Opinion Lab of the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center at the Washington State University for its technical assistance. A special thank you to The George Gund Foundation and Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association for helping to fund this study.

Visitor Services Project Cuyahoga Valley National Park Report Summary This report describes the results of a visitor study at Cuyahoga Valley National Park (NP) during July 23-31, 2005. A total of 1,188 questionnaires were distributed to visitor groups. Of those, 905 questionnaires were returned resulting in a 76% response rate. This report profiles a random sample of Cuyahoga Valley NP visitors. Most results are presented in graphs and frequency tables. Summaries of visitor comments are included in this report and complete comments are included in the Visitor Comments Appendix. Forty-four percent of visitor groups were in groups of two and 25% were alone. Forty-nine percent of visitor groups were family groups. Fifty-two percent of visitors were ages 36-60 years and 17% were ages 15 or younger. United States visitors were from Ohio (91%) and 29 other states. International visitors comprised 1% of the total visitation, although there were too few international visitors to provide reliable information. Sixty-one percent of groups visited from one to 51 times/year. Fifteen percent of visitors were visiting Cuyahoga Valley NP for the first time. Prior to this visit, visitor groups most often obtained information about Cuyahoga Valley NP from previous visits (82%) and friends/relatives/word of mouth (44%). Eight percent of visitor groups did not obtain any information before their visit. Most groups (91%) received the information they needed about the park. The most common primary reasons for visiting Cuyahoga Valley NP were to bicycle (35%), hike/walk (26%), and jog/run (12%). The most common activities on this visit included hiking/walking (55%), bicycling (47%), and taking a scenic drive for pleasure (33%). Most visitor groups (54%) spent two to three hours at the park on this visit. Regarding use, importance, and quality of services and facilities, it is to note the number of visitor groups that responded to each question. The most used information services by 458 visitor groups included the park brochure/map (72%) and trailhead bulletin boards (45%). Most visitor groups rated visitor center/museum exhibits (84%, N=83), NPS park website (8, N=51) and assistance from information desk staff (8, N=62) as extremely or very. The highest combined proportions of very good and good quality ratings were for assistance from hiking/biking rangers/volunteers (95%, N=52), educational signs/outside exhibits (95%, N=69), and visitor center/museum bookstore sales items (95%, N=38). The most used visitor services/facilities by the 834 visitor groups included parking lots (8) and Towpath Trail (71%). The services/facilities that received the highest combined proportions of extremely and very ratings included Towpath Trail (98%, N=565), hiking trails (97%, N=264), parking lots (97%, N=646), and restrooms with running water (96%, N=411). The services/facilities that received the highest combined proportions of very good and good quality ratings included Towpath Trail (96%, N=544), hiking trails (93%, N=257), railroad stations (93%, N=70), and restrooms with running water (92%, N=394). When asked how the park was to their group, 78% of visitor groups rated the park as "extremely " or "very." Most visitor groups (97%) rated the overall quality of services, facilities, and recreational opportunities at Cuyahoga Valley NP as very good or good. Less than 1% of groups rated the overall quality as very poor or poor. For more information about the Visitor Services Project, please contact the Park Studies Unit at the University of Idaho or at the following website http://www.psu.uidaho.edu

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION...1 Organization of the report...1 Presentation of the results...2 METHODS...3 Survey Design...3 Sample size and sampling plan...3 Questionnaire design...4 Survey procedure...4 Data Analysis...4 Limitations...5 Special Conditions...5 Checking Non-response Bias...6 RESULTS...7 Demographics...7 Visitor group size...7 Visitor group type...7 Respondent ethnicity...8 Respondent race...8 Visitors with disabilities/impairments...9 Visitor gender...10 Visitor age...10 Frequency of visits to park...11 Visitor level of education...11 U.S. visitors' state of residence...12 International visitors' country of residence...13 Information Prior to Visit...14 Source of information...14 Visitor awareness of park management...16 Information During Visit...17 Primary reason for visiting the area...17 Number of vehicles used...18 Adequacy of directional signs...18 Way finding...19 Length of visit...21 Activities...22 Frequency of activities during the past 12 months...23 Activity that was primary reason for visiting the park...24 Activities and money spent in nearby communities...25 Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad and related activities...32 Awareness and support for the Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association...35 Sites visited on this visit...37 Safety concerns while visiting the park...41 Visitor experiences in other parks in the region...43 s of Information and Visitor Services, Facilities, Partner Sites, Resources, Qualities, Attributes, and Importance of Park...44 Information services used on this visit...44 Importance ratings for information services...45 Quality ratings for information services...50 Means of importance and quality ratings...55 Information services used on past visits...56 Visitor services and facilities used...57 i

Importance of visitor services/facilities... 58 Quality of visitor services/facilities... 63 Means of importance and quality ratings... 68 Importance ratings of selected resources/qualities/attributes... 69 Importance of park to visitors... 71 Information About Future Preferences... 72 Preferences about future fees... 72 Preferred learning methods... 74 Overall Quality... 75 Visitor Comments... 76 Planning for the future... 76 Additional comments... 78 APPENDICES... 81 Appendix 1: The Questionnaire... 81 Appendix 2: Additional Analysis... 83 Appendix 3: Decision Rules for Checking Non-response Bias... 84 Appendix 4: Visitor Services Project Publications... 85 Visitor Comments Appendix... 88 ii

INTRODUCTION This report describes the results of a visitor study at Cuyahoga Valley NP during July 23-31, 2005 by the National Park Service (NPS) Visitor Services Project (VSP), a part of the Park Studies Unit (PSU) at the University of Idaho. The report is organized into three sections. Organization of the report Section 1: Methods. This section discusses the procedures, limitations, and special conditions that may affect the results of the study. Section 2:. This section provides summary information for each question in the questionnaire and includes a summary of visitor comments. The presentation of the results of this study does not follow the same order of questions in the questionnaire. Instead, the results are presented in the following order: Section 3: Appendices Demographics Information Prior to Visit Information During Visit s of the Park s Services, Facilities, Resources, Qualities, Attributes, and Elements and Value for Fee Paid Expenditures (only presented if the questionnaire included expenditure questions) Information about Future Preferences Overall Quality Visitor Comments Appendix 1: The Questionnaire contains a copy of the questionnaire distributed to visitor groups. Appendix 2: Additional Analysis contains a list of options for cross references and cross comparisons. These comparisons can be analyzed within park or between parks. of additional analyses are not included in this report as they may only be requested after this study is published. Appendix 3: Decision rules for checking non-response bias. Appendix 4: Visitor Services Project Publications contains a complete list of publications by the PSU. Copies of these reports can be obtained by contacting the PSU office or visiting the website: http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsp/reports.htm. Visitor Comments Appendix: A separate appendix contains visitor responses to open-ended questions. It is bound separately from this report due to its size. 1

Presentation of the results are represented in the form of graphs (see example below) scatter plots, pie charts, or tables and text. SAMPLE ONLY 1: The figure title describes the graph's information. 2: Listed above the graph, the N shows the number of individuals or visitor groups responding to the question. If N is less than 30, CAUTION! on the graph indicates the results may be unreliable. * appears when total percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding. ** appears when total percentages do not equal 100 because visitor can select more than one answer choice. 3: Vertical information describes the response categories. 4: Horizontal information shows the number or proportions of responses in each category. 5: In most graphs, percentages provide additional information. 2

Sample size and sampling plan METHODS Survey Design All VSP questionnaires follow design principles outlined in Don A. Dillman's book Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2000). Based on this methodology, the sample size was calculated based on park visitation statistics of the previous years. To minimize coverage error, the sample size was also determined to provide adequate information about specific park sites if requested. Brief interviews were conducted with visitor groups, and 1,188 questionnaires were distributed to a random sample of visitor groups who arrived at Cuyahoga Valley NP during the period from July 23-31, 2005. Table 1 shows the numbers of questionnaires distributed at 18 different sites within the park. These sampling locations were selected based on park visitation statistics and advice from park staff. Table 1: Questionnaire distribution locations N=number of questionnaires distributed Sampling site N Percent Virginia Kendall Park-Ledges Trailhead 90 8 Brandywine trails & restrooms 70 6 Happy Days Visitor Center/trails parking 50 4 Kendall Lake 40 3 Oak Hill Trailhead 24 2 Horseshoe Pond 22 2 Cuyahoga Valley-Scenic Railroad-Rockside Station 44 4 Stanford Hostel 7 1 Station Road Trail 155 13 Canal Visitor Center/parking lot 108 9 Lock 29 Trailhead & overflow 100 8 Boston Store/parking lot 98 8 Botzum Indian Mound Trail 70 6 Red Lock Trailhead 73 6 Lock 39 Trailhead 70 6 Ira Road Trailhead 70 6 Hunt Farm Trail 53 4 Frazee House parking lot 44 4 Total 1188 101* *total percentage does not equal 100 due to rounding 3

Questionnaire design The Cuyahoga Valley NP questionnaire was developed at a workshop held with park staff to design and prioritize the questions. Some of the questions were comparable with VSP studies conducted at other parks while others were customized for Cuyahoga Valley NP. Many questions asked visitors to choose answers from a list of responses, often with an open-ended option, while others were completely open-ended. No pilot study was conducted to test the Cuyahoga Valley NP questionnaire. However, all questions followed the OMB guidelines and/or were used in previous surveys. Thus, the clarity and consistency of the survey instrument have been tested and proven. Survey procedure Visitor groups were greeted, briefly introduced to the purpose of the study, and asked to participate. If visitors agreed, an interview lasting approximately two minutes was used to determine group size, group type, and the age of the group member (at least 16 years of age) who would complete the questionnaire. These individuals were then asked for their names, addresses, and telephone numbers in order to mail them a reminder/thank you postcard and follow-ups. Visitor groups were given a questionnaire, asked to complete it after their visit, and then return it by mail. The questionnaires were pre-addressed and affixed with a U.S. first class postage stamp. Two weeks following the survey, a reminder/thank you postcard was mailed to all participants. Replacement questionnaires were mailed to participants who had not returned their questionnaires four weeks after the survey. Seven weeks after the survey, a second round of replacement questionnaires were mailed to visitors who had not returned their questionnaires. Data Analysis Returned questionnaires were coded and the information was entered into a computer using standard statistical software packages Statistical Analysis System (SAS) and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics and crosstabulations were calculated for the coded data, and responses to open-ended questions were categorized and summarized. 4

Limitations Like all surveys, this study has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. 1. This was a self-administered survey. Respondents filled out the questionnaire after the visit, which may result in poor recall of the visit details. Thus, it is not possible to know whether visitor responses reflected actual behavior. 2. The data reflect visitor use patterns of visitors to the selected sites during the study period of July 23-31, 2005. The results present a snapshot-in-time and do not necessarily apply to visitors during other times of the year. 3. Caution is advised when interpreting any data with a sample size of less than 30, as the results may be unreliable. Whenever the sample size is less than 30, the word "CAUTION!" is included in the graph, figure, table, or text. 4. Occasionally, there may be inconsistencies in the results. Inconsistencies arise from missing data or incorrect answers (due to misunderstood directions, carelessness, or poor recall of information). Therefore, refer to both the percentage and N (number of individuals or visitor groups) when interpreting the results. Special Conditions The weather during the sampling period was typical of northern Ohio weather in July, with many warm to hot, sunny days and occasional rainy days. Conditions were sometimes foggy in the early morning due to the high humidity. Tuesday, July 26 had a heat index of 105 F. with rain and winds up to 75 mph, so interviewing was cancelled on that day. 5

Checking Non-response Bias At Cuyahoga Valley NP, 1,294 visitor groups were contacted and 1,188 of these groups (92%) accepted the questionnaire. Questionnaires were completed and returned by 905 visitor groups, resulting in a 76% response rate for this study. The two variables used to check non-response bias were age of the group member who actually completed the questionnaire and group size. The results show that there is no significant difference between respondent and non-respondent ages and group sizes. Therefore, the non-response bias was judged to be insignificant and the data in this study is a good representation of a larger population of visitors to Cuyahoga Valley NP. See Appendix 3 for more details of the non-response bias checking procedure. Table 2: Comparison of respondents and non-respondents Respondent Non-respondent Variable N Average N Average p-value (t-test) Age 864 47.4 278 42.7 0.79 Group size 875 3.3 278 2.9 0.31 Both p-values are greater than 0.05; therefore, non-response bias was judged to be insignificant. 6

Visitor group size Demographics Question 18a On this visit, how many people were in your personal group, including yourself? 5 or more N=875 visitor groups* 11% Visitor group size ranged from 1 person to 200 people. 4 11% 44% of visitor groups consisted of two people (see Figure 1). Group size 3 1 25% had one person. 2 44% 22% had 3 or 4 people. 1 25% 0 100 200 300 400 Visitor group type Figure 1: Visitor group size Question 17 On this visit what kind of personal group (not guided tour/school group) were you with? Family N=876 visitor groups* 49% 49% of visitor groups were made up of family members (see Figure 2). 25% were alone. Group type Alone Friends 17% 25% Other groups (3%) included: Hiking/running/biking clubs Church groups Scouts Significant others Accompanied by dogs Family & friends Other 5% 3% 0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 2: Visitor group type 7

Respondent ethnicity Question 20a For you only, are you Hispanic or Latino? Less than 1% (N=3) of respondents were Hispanic or Latino (see Figure 3). Hispanic/ Latino N=853 individuals* Yes <1% No 10 0 300 600 900 Figure 3: Respondents of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity Respondent race Question 20b For you only, which of these categories best indicates your race? White N=863 individuals 97% 97% of respondents were White (see Figure 4). Black or African American 1% 1% of visitors respectively were Black or African American, Asian, and American Indian or Alaska Native. Race Asian American Indian or Alaska Native 1% 1% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 300 600 900 Figure 4: Respondent race 8

Visitors with disabilities/impairments Question 21a Does anyone in your group have any disabilities/impairments that affected their visit to Cuyahoga Valley NP? 4% of visitor groups had members with disabilities/impairments that affected their park experience (see Figure 5). Members with disabilities/ impairments? Yes No N=879 visitor groups 4% 96% 0 300 600 900 Figure 5: Visitors with disabilities/impairments Question 21b If Yes, because of this disability/impairment, did you and your group encounter any access or service problems during this visit to Cuyahoga Valley NP? Of those who had disabilities/ impairments, 23% encountered access/service problems (see Figure 6). Encounter access/ service problems? Yes No N=30 visitor groups 23% 77% 0 10 20 30 Figure 6: Visitors who encountered access/ service problems due to disabilities/ impairments Question 21c If Yes, please offer suggestions for improvement. 21% (N=7) of visitor groups with disabilities/impairments answered this question. Interpret with CAUTION! Suggestions offered by visitor groups included: Trails should be paved Too many steps More rest areas Closer accessibility to the falls More bathrooms Uneven surfaces More wheelchair accessibility 9

Visitor gender Question 19a For you and your group (up to seven members), please indicate your gender. 52% of visitors were male (see Figure 7). Gender Male Female N=2145 individuals 48% 52% 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Figure 7: Visitor gender Visitor age Question 19b For you and your personal group (up to seven members), what is your current age? Visitor ages ranged from 1 to 98 years old. 17% of visitors were 15 years or younger (see Figure 8). 52% were in the 36-60 year age group. 13% were 61 years or older. Age group (years) 76 or older 71-75 66-70 61-65 56-60 51-55 46-50 41-45 36-40 31-35 26-30 21-25 16-20 11-15 10 or younger N=2098 individuals 2% 2% 4% 3% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 8% 9% 1 11% 12% 13% 0 100 200 300 Figure 8: Visitor ages 10

Frequency of visits to park Question 19d For you and your personal group (up to seven members), how often do you visit the park? Daily N=1953 individuals 1% 31% of visitors visited Cuyahoga Valley NP 12 to 51 times per year (see Figure 9). 3 visited the park from 1 to 11 times per year. 52 to 360 times/year 12 to 51 times/year Frequency 1 to 11 times/year 17% 31% 3 Less than 1 time/year 6% First vist 15% 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 9: Frequency of visits to the park Visitor level of education Question 22 For you and each of the members (up to seven members, aged 16 or over) in your group on this visit, please indicate the highest level of education completed. Graduate degree Bachelor's degree N=1839 individuals 27% 35% 62% of visitors held a bachelor s degree or higher (see Figure 10). 2 had some college. Level of education Some college High school diploma/ged 14% 2 Some high school 4% 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 10: Visitor highest level of education 11

U.S. visitors' state of residence Question 19c For you and your personal group (up to seven members), please list U.S. zip code or name of foreign country of residence. As shown in Table 3 and Map 1: 91% of U.S. visitors came from Ohio. Smaller proportions came from 29 other states. State Table 3: United States visitors by state of residence* Number of visitors Percent of U.S. visitors N=1,952 individuals Percent of total visitors N=1,969 individuals Ohio 1776 91 90 Michigan 22 1 1 Florida 15 1 1 Illinois 13 1 1 New York 13 1 1 California 10 1 1 Pennsylvania 10 1 1 23 other states 93 5 5 Map 1: Proportions of United States visitors by state of residence 12

International visitors' country of residence Question 19c For you and your personal group (up to seven members), please list U.S. zip code or name of foreign country of residence. 1% of visitors were international. International visitors came from seven countries (see Table 4). Interpret with CAUTION! Table 4: International visitors by country of residence* CAUTION! Country Number of visitors Percent of international visitors N=17 individuals Percent of total visitors N=1,969 individuals Canada 5 29 <1 England 4 24 <1 France 2 12 <1 Taiwan 2 12 <1 Ukraine 2 12 <1 Belgium 1 6 <1 China 1 6 <1 13

Source of information Information Prior to Visit Question 1a Prior to this visit, how did you and your group obtain information about Cuyahoga Valley NP? 92% of visitor groups obtained information about Cuyahoga Valley NP prior to their visit to the park (see Figure 11). As shown in Figure 12, the most common sources of information included: 82% Previous visits 44% Friends/relatives/word of mouth 36% Walking/driving by and saw signs Obtain information prior to visit? Figure 11: Yes No N=900 visitor groups 8% 92% 0 300 600 900 Visitors who obtained information about park prior to this visit Other sources of information (1) included: Hiking organization/club Scouts Live near the park Grew up near park Flyers College courses Rangers Source Previous visits Friends/relatives/ word of mouth Walking/driving by and saw signs Maps/brochures/ calendar of events NPS park website Major newspapers/magazines CVNPA website Community newspapers Travel guides/ tour books Park website (Day in the valley) TV/radio programs N=825 visitor groups** 7% 3% 13% 11% 11% 1 1 36% 32% 44% 82% Other websites 3% School class or program Telephone/email written inquiry to park Other 2% 1% 1 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 12: Source of information used by visitor groups prior to this visit 14

Question 1b From the sources checked above, did you and your group receive the type of information about the park that you needed? 91% of visitor groups obtained needed information about Cuyahoga Valley NP prior to their visit (see Figure 13). Receive needed information? Yes No Not sure N=778 visitor groups 3% 6% 91% 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 13: Visitor groups who obtained needed information prior to this visit Question 1c If No, what type of park information did you and your group need that was not available? 28% of visitor groups (N=22) responded to this question. Interpret with CAUTION! Information that was not available to visitor groups is listed in Table 5. Table 5: Information that was not available to visitor groups N=38 comments Number of times Information mentioned Maps of park 11 Trail information 6 Activity/event schedules 5 Directional information to park 3 In-park directions 3 Time needed to visit 2 Trail locations 2 Other comments 6 15

Visitor awareness of park management Question 2a Prior to this visit, were you and your group aware that the National Park Service manages Cuyahoga Valley NP? 76% of visitor groups were aware that the National Park Service manages the park (see Figure 14). Aware NPS manages the park? Yes No Not sure N=895 visitor groups 4% 2 76% 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 14: Visitor awareness of the National Park Service management of the park Question2b On this visit, did you and your group visit Cuyahoga Valley NP because it is a national park? 82% of visitor groups reported that their decision to visit Cuyahoga Valley NP was not affected by the fact that it is a national park (see Figure 15). Yes Visit because it is a No national park? Not sure N=892 visitor groups* 3% 16% 82% 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 15: Visitor groups who visited Cuyahoga Valley NP because it is a national park Question 2c Prior to this visit to Cuyahoga Valley NP, were you and your group aware that Cuyahoga Valley NP is part of a national heritage area, the Ohio & Erie Canalway? 81% of visitor groups were aware that Cuyahoga Valley NP is part of the Ohio & Erie Canalway National Heritage Area (see Figure 16). Aware that park is part of a national heritage area? Yes No Not sure N=892 visitor groups 2% 17% 81% 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 16: Visitor awareness that Cuyahoga Valley NP is part of a national heritage area 16

Primary reason for visiting the area Information During Visit Question 3 On this visit, what was the primary reason that you and your group visited Cuyahoga Valley NP area (Cleveland/Akron metropolitan area)? 5 of visitor groups were residents of the Cuyahoga Valley NP area (see Figure 17). As shown in Figure 18, of those who were not residents of the area (5), primary reasons for visiting the area included: 48% Visit Cuyahoga Valley NP 7% Visit other attractions in the area Resident of the area? Yes No N=889 visitor groups 5 5 0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 17: Visitor groups who are residents of the area N=446 visitor groups* Other reasons (38%) are shown in Table 6. Visit Cuyahoga Valley National Park 48% Visit other attractions in the area Reason Visit friends/ relatives in the area 7% 5% Table 6: Other reasons for visiting Cuyahoga Valley NP area N=170 comments Number of times Reason mentioned Hiking/biking/walking/exercise 101 Bike on towpath 17 Ride scenic railroad 8 Hike on towpath 7 Sightseeing 7 Organization/club gathering 5 Fishing 4 Family reunion 3 Use of towpath 3 Scouts 2 Live nearby 2 Wildlife 2 Other comments 9 Business Other 1% 38% 0 50 100 150 200 250 Figure 18: Primary reasons for visiting Cuyahoga Valley NP area 17

Number of vehicles used Question 18b For this visit to Cuyahoga Valley NP, please list the number of vehicles in which you and your group arrived. 3 or more N=878 visitor groups 5% 82% of visitor groups used one vehicle (see Figure 19). 1% of groups arrived on foot or bicycles. Number of vehicles 2 1 0 1% 12% 82% 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 19: Number of vehicles used Adequacy of directional signs Question 4a On this visit, were the signs directing you to Cuyahoga Valley NP adequate? Yes N=770 visitor groups 67% Signs on interstates 67% of visitor groups reported directional signs on interstates were adequate (see Figure 20). Signs adequate? No Not sure 8% 25% 0 200 400 600 Figure 20: Adequacy of directional signs on interstates 18

Signs on local roadways 84% of visitor groups reported directional signs on local roadways were adequate (see Figure 21). Signs adequate? N=848 visitor groups Yes No 7% 84% Not sure 9% 0 200 400 600 800 Way finding Figure 21: Adequacy of directional signs on local roadways Question 4b On this visit, did you and your group have any difficulty locating the park? 98% of visitor groups did not have any difficulty locating the park (see Figure 22). Difficulty locating the park? N=892 visitor groups Yes 2% No 98% 0 300 600 900 Figure 22: Visitor groups with difficulty locating the park Question 4c If Yes, please explain the problem. Of those who had difficulty locating the park, 69% of visitor groups (N=24) responded to this question. Interpret with CAUTION! Problems listed by visitor groups were: Trails not clearly marked Not enough signs Poor map Construction blocked signs Not enough signs from interstate Difficult to find visitor center Difficult to find train depot Difficult to find Brandywine Falls Signs too small 19

Question 4d On this visit, were the signs inside the park adequate for finding your way? Yes N=834 visitor groups 91% 91% of visitor groups reported that the signs inside the park were adequate for finding the way (see Figure 23). Signs adequate? No Not sure 4% 5% 0 200 400 600 800 Figure 23: Adequacy of directional signs inside park Question 4e If No, please explain the problem. 28% of visitor groups (N=42) responded this question. Problems mentioned by visitor groups are shown in Table 7. Table 7: Difficulties finding way in park N=43 comments Number of times Problem mentioned Area not marked 11 Signs hard to see 9 Not enough signs 4 Signs too small 4 Map not helpful 3 Needed map 3 Signs confusing 3 Other comments 6 20

Length of visit Question 5 On this visit, how long did you and your group stay at Cuyahoga Valley NP? 5 or more N=795 visitor groups 14% Number of hours, if less than 24 hours 34% of visitor groups spent two hours at the park (see Figure 24). Number of hours 4 3 13% 2 33% stayed 3 to 4 hours. 2 34% Up to 1 19% 0 100 200 300 Figure 24: Number of hours stayed at the park Number of days, if 24 hours or more N=13 visitor groups 2% of visitor groups visited the park for one day or more. Of those, 46% of visitor groups stayed two days (see Figure 25). Interpret with CAUTION! Number of days 3 or more 2 1 23% 31% 46% CAUTION! 0 2 4 6 8 10 Figure 25: Number of days stayed at the park Average length of stay On average, visitor groups spent 4.4 hours visiting the park. 21

Activities Question 9a On this visit to Cuyahoga Valley NP, what activities did you and/or your group participate in? As shown in Figure 26, the most common activities included: 55% Hiking/walking 47% Bicycling The least common activities were: 1% Canoeing/kayaking <1% Horseback riding Other activities (6%) are shown in Table 8. Visit historic houses/sites Activity Hiking/walking Bicycling Take a scenic drive for pleasure Jogging/running Birdwatching/ nature viewing Walking dogs Photography/painting Picnicking Attend special programs/ events/tours Fishing Canoeing/kayaking Horseback riding N=815 visitor groups** 2% 1% <1% 8% 13% 1 1 19% 18% 17% 33% 47% 55% Other 6% Table 8: Other activities in the park N=35 comments Number of times Reason mentioned Visit/view falls 4 Art garage 3 Being outside 2 Other comments 26 0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 26: Visitor activities on this visit 22

Frequency of activities during the past 12 months Question 9b For visits to Cuyahoga Valley NP during the past 12 months, please list the number of times you and/or your group participated in these activities. Table 9 lists the frequency that visitor groups participated in each activity. Some results need to be interpreted with caution because there were not enough responses to provide reliable data. Other activities are as listed in Table 8. Table 9: Frequency of activities during past 12 months* N=number of visitor groups who participated in each activity. Activity N Daily Several times a week Frequency (%) Several times a month Several times a year Only once Take a scenic drive/drive for 418 2 9 31 48 10 pleasure Visit historic houses/sites 272 <1 1 5 56 38 Attend special 196 1 1 5 58 36 programs/events/tours Hiking/walking 528 5 16 35 38 6 Walking dogs 144 8 16 33 32 10 Jogging/running 204 8 32 37 22 2 Bicycling 451 3 18 35 39 6 Horseback riding CAUTION! 17 0 6 18 41 35 Canoeing/kayaking 32 0 3 25 31 41 Fishing 54 0 6 15 56 24 Picnicking 176 0 1 13 69 18 Photography/painting 110 2 4 31 45 18 Birdwatching/nature viewing 219 2 14 33 45 6 Cross-country skiing/ 92 1 9 13 59 18 snowshoeing/sledding/skiing Other CAUTION! 27 7 4 41 19 30 23

Activity that was primary reason for visiting the park Question 9c On this visit, what was your primary reason for visiting Cuyahoga Valley NP? As shown in Figure 27, activities that were primary reasons for visiting the park included: 35% Bicycling 26% Hiking/walking Other primary reasons (15%) mentioned by visitor groups are shown in Table 10. Bicycling Hiking/walking Jogging/running Walking dogs Take scenic drive/ drive for pleasure 2% Birdwatching/ nature viewing 2% Photography/painting 1% Reason Fishing 1% Picnicking N=841 visitor groups* <1% 5% 12% 26% 35% Table 10: Other activities that were primary reasons for visiting Cuyahoga Valley NP N=129 comments Number of times Reason mentioned Train ride/scenic railroad 36 Viewing waterfalls 17 Enjoying nature 14 Seeing the national park 10 Family time 6 Relaxation 5 Planning a future visit 5 Viewing Ice Box Cave 4 Viewing art 2 Viewing race 2 Being outside 2 Other comments 26 Attend special programs View historic houses/sites <1% Canoeing/kayaking <1% Horseback riding Other <1% <1% 15% 0 100 200 300 Figure 27: Activity that was primary reason for visiting the park 24

Activities and money spent in nearby communities Question 11a On this visit to Cuyahoga Valley NP, what other activities did you and your group participate in within a 15-minute drive of the park (for example: Peninsula, Valley View, northern Akron)? As shown in Figure 28, the most common activities included: 57% Dining in a restaurant 3 Shopping 27% Buying takeout food Activity Dining in a restaurant Shopping Buying takeout food Entertainment, recreation, & general sightseeing Lodging/camping Other N=409 visitor groups** 3% 1 7% 3 27% 57% 0 50 100 150 200 250 Figure 28: Activities within park and nearby communities Question 11b Please list the nearby communities, including communities within the park, where you did these activities. Tables 11-18 list the nearby communities where visitors participated in activities and their related expenditures. Question 11c Please list you and your group s expenditures for each of the activities in each community. Please write 0 if you did not have any expenditures. Lodging/ camping (2) N=409 visitor groups** Other purchases (4%) Shopping (21%) As shown in Figure 29, the largest proportions of total expenditures were: 43% Dining in restaurant 21% Shopping 2 Lodging/camping Tables 11-18 list the nearby communities where visitors participated in activities and their related expenditures. Entertainment, admission, & general sightseeing (5%) Buying takeout food (7%) Dining in restaurant (43%) Figure 29: Proportion of total expenditures within park and nearby communities 25

Service Table 11: Total expenditures by type of service N=Number of visitor groups who responded; some visitor groups purchased the same service in more than one community. Total Reported expenditures Average per minimum N ($) visitor group ($) Reported maximum ($) Shopping 121 4281.10 35.4.00 300.00 Dining in restaurant 233 8729.00 37.5 5.00 400.00 Buying takeout food 109 1509.00 13.8 1.00 70.00 Entertainment, admission, and 39 1001.00 25.7.00 200.00 general sightseeing Lodging/camping fees 13 3994.00 307.2 84.00 1200.00 Other purchases 28 771.00 27.5.00 200.00 Total 409 20285.10 49.6.00 1200.00 Table 12: Total expenditures by community N=number of visitor groups who responded; some visitor groups purchased more than one service in the same community Total expenditures ($) 26 Average per group ($) Reported minimum ($) Reported maximum ($) Community N Akron 28 1427 51.0 0 200 Bath 12 459 38.3 0 60 Boston 20 27.71 1.4 0 75 Boston Heights 3 500 166.7 0 450 Brecksville 19 525 27.6 0 100 Brunswick 1 20 20.0 20 20 Cleveland 3 955 318.3 20 400 Cleveland Heights 1 60 60.0 60 60 Cuyahoga Falls 50 867 17.3 0 70 Fairlawn 3 87 29.0 7 50 Garfield Heights 5 211 42.2 0 100 Hinkley 1 10 10.0 10 10 Hudson 19 903 47.5 0 120 Independence 13 2858 219.8 0 1200 Kent 2 35 17.5 5 30 Macedonia 13 841 64.7 3 200 Montrose 6 96 16.0 3 40 Newbury 1 200 200.0 200 200 North Royalton 1 20 20.0 5 15 Northfield 9 122 13.6 0 30 Parma 4 407 101.8 15 300 Peninsula 188 6462 34.4 0 400 Richfield 7 74 10.6 3 30 Sagamore Hills 7 399 57.0 0 320 Seven Hills 2 26 13.0 6 20 Stow 3 72 24.0 7 45 Streetsboro 2 284 142.0 84 200 Twinsburg 1 10 10.0 10 10 Valley View 21 611 29.1 0 110 Unspecified 40 1467 36.7 0 235

Community Table 13: Expenditures for shopping by community N= Number of visitor groups who responded; some visitor groups shopped in more than one community. N Percentage of total expenditures for shopping Total shopping expenditures ($) Average per group ($) Reported minimum ($) Reported maximum ($) Akron 6 14% 600.0 100.00 20.00 200.0 Bath 3 2% 95.0 31.67 20.00 50.0 Boston 3 2% 90.1 30.03.10 60.0 Boston Heights 1 1% 50.0 50.00 50.00 50.0 Brecksville 3 3% 145.0 48.33 20.00 100.0 Cuyahoga Falls 36 16% 675.0 18.75.00 70.0 Fairlawn 2 2% 80.0 40.00 30.00 50.0 Garfield Heights 2 2% 107.0 53.50 7.00 100.0 Hinkley 1 <1% 10.0 10.00 10.00 10.0 Hudson 3 3% 145.0 48.33 20.00 75.0 Independence 1 5% 200.0 200.00 200.00 200.0 Kent 1 <1% 5.0 5.00 5.00 5.0 Macedonia 8 14% 587.0 73.38 17.00 200.0 Parma 2 8% 350.0 175.00 50.00 300.0 Peninsula 44 21% 919.0 20.89.00 170.0 Sagamore Hills 1 <1% 8.0 8.00 8.00 8.0 Valley View 1 <1% 5.0 5.00 5.00 5.0 Unspecified 8 5% 210.0 26.25 15.00 50.0 27

Community Table 14: Expenditures for dining by community N=number of visitor groups who responded; some visitor groups dined in more than one community. N Percentage of total expenditures for dining Total dining expenditures ($) Average per group ($) Reported minimum ($) Reported maximum ($) Akron 10 3% 274.00 27.40 10.00 50.00 Bath 2 1% 72.00 36.00 22.00 50.00 Boston 1 1% 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Brecksville 6 2% 139.00 23.17 6.00 75.00 Cleveland 3 4% 335.00 111.67 60.00 200.00 Cleveland Heights 1 1% 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 Cuyahoga Falls 3 <1% 31.00 10.33 10.00 11.00 Hudson 12 7% 604.00 50.33 10.00 120.00 Independence 10 7% 576.00 57.60 6.00 200.00 Kent 1 <1% 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Macedonia 2 1% 46.00 23.00 6.00 40.00 Montrose 2 1% 65.00 32.50 25.00 40.00 Northfield 4 1% 56.00 14.00 5.00 30.00 Parma 1 <1% 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 Peninsula 147 58% 5089.00 34.62 7.00 400.00 Richfield 1 <1% 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 Sagamore Hills 1 <1% 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 Seven Hills 2 <1% 26.00 13.00 6.00 20.00 Stow 2 1% 52.00 26.00 7.00 45.00 Valley View 13 6% 505.00 38.85 10.00 110.00 Unspecified 17 7% 611.00 35.94 6.00 80.00 28

Community Table 15: Expenditures for takeout food by community N=number of visitor groups who responded; some visitor groups purchased takeout food in more than one community. N Percentage of total expenditures for takeout food Total expenditures for takeout food ($) Average per group ($) Reported minimum ($) Reported maximum ($) Akron 8 7% 109.00 13.63 5.00 25.00 Bath 4 8% 114.00 28.50 4.00 40.00 Boston 15 7% 104.00 6.93 1.00 20.00 Brecksville 4 5% 71.00 17.75 5.00 50.00 Brunswick 1 1% 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Cleveland 1 1% 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Cuyahoga Falls 11 7% 106.00 9.64 3.00 20.00 Fairlawn 1 <1% 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Garfield Heights 1 <1% 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Hudson 9 1 144.00 16.00 5.00 50.00 Independence 3 2% 27.00 9.00 5.00 15.00 Macedonia 4 7% 108.00 27.00 3.00 70.00 Montrose 3 2% 28.00 9.33 5.00 15.00 North Royalton 1 <1% 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Northfield 3 2% 36.00 12.00 8.00 20.00 Parma 1 1% 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Peninsula 15 1 156.00 10.40 2.00 30.00 Richfield 6 3% 44.00 7.33 3.00 15.00 Sagamore Hills 1 3% 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 Stow 1 1% 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Twinsburg 1 1% 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Valley View 3 4% 63.00 21.00 10.00 28.00 Unspecified 16 17% 258.00 16.13 3.00 50.00 29

Table 16: Expenditures for entertainment, recreation, and general sightseeing by community N=number of visitor groups who responded; some visitor groups had entertainment, recreation, and general sightseeing activities in more than one community. Community N Percentage of total expenditure for entertainment, recreation, and general sightseeing Total expenditure for entertainment, recreation, and general sightseeing ($) Average per group ($) Reported minimum ($) Reported maximum ($) Akron 5 23% 234.00 46.80.00 156.00 Bath 2 11% 115.00 57.50 55.00 60.00 Boston 2.00.00.00.00 Boston Heights 1.00.00.00.00 Brecksville 5 8% 80.00 16.00.00 35.00 Cleveland 1 2 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 Hudson 3 1% 10.00 3.33.00 10.00 Independence 1.00.00.00.00 North Royalton 1 1% 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Peninsula 14 26% 262.00 18.71.00 200.00 Sagamore Hills 3 2% 20.00 6.67.00 20.00 Valley View 3.00.00.00.00 Unspecified 4 6% 65.00 16.25.00 50.00 Community Table 17: Expenditures for lodging/camping by community N=number of visitor groups who responded; some visitor groups purchased lodging/camping services in more than one community. N Percentage of total expenditure for lodging/ camping Total expenditure for lodging/ camping ($) Average per group ($) Reported minimum ($) Reported maximum ($) Boston Heights 1 11% 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 Cleveland 1 1 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 Independence 5 5 2005.00 401.00 85.00 1200.00 Macedonia 1 3% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Newbury 1 5% 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 Sagamore Hills 1 8% 320.00 320.00 320.00 320.00 Streetsboro 2 7% 284.00 142.00 84.00 200.00 Unspecified 1 6% 235.00 235.00 235.00 235.00 30

Community Table 18: Expenditures for other purchases by community N=number of visitor groups who responded; some visitor groups purchased other services/products in more than one community. N Percentage of total expenditure for all other purchases Total expenditure for all other purchases ($) Average per group ($) Reported minimum ($) Reported maximum ($) Akron 3 27% 210.00 70.00.00 200.00 Bath 3 8% 63.00 21.00.00 40.00 Boston 1 1% 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Brecksville 2 12% 90.00 45.00 10.00 80.00 Cuyahoga Falls 3 7% 55.00 18.33 5.00 35.00 Garfield Heights 2 13% 100.00 50.00.00 100.00 Independence 1 6% 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 Montrose 1 <1% 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Northfield 2 4% 30.00 15.00.00 30.00 Peninsula 5 5% 36.00 7.20.00 15.00 Valley View 3 5% 38.00 12.67.00 30.00 Unspecified 3 11% 88.00 29.33 10.00 68.00 31

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad and related activities Question 6a Have you or any of your group members ridden the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) train? 52% of visitor groups rode the CVSR train (see Figure 30). Ride the CVSR train? Yes No N=886 visitor groups 52% 48% 0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 30: Visitor groups who rode the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) train Question 6b If No, why not? Of those who did not ride the train, 77% of visitor groups (N=344) responded to this question. Reasons for not riding the train are shown in Table 19. Table 19: Reasons for not riding the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad N=344 comments Number of times Reason mentioned Time 104 No interest 95 Too much effort 57 Cost 29 Unaware 18 Needed schedule 15 Don't know 11 Trip full 6 Train times not convenient 3 Children 3 Other comments 3 Question 6c If Yes, when did you and your group ride the train? 9 of visitor groups rode the CVSR train on past visits only (see Figure 31). 6% rode the train on this visit 4% rode the train on both this visit and past visits When did you ride the train? On past visits only On this visit only On this visit and past visits N=457 visitor groups 6% 4% 9 0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 31: When visitor groups rode the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) train 32

Question 6d If you and your group rode the train on this visit, did the train/train ride meet your expectations? 98% of visitor groups expectations were met by the train/train ride (see Figure 32). Train/train ride meet your expectations? Yes No N=45 visitor groups 2% 98% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Figure 32: Visitor groups expectations met for the train/train ride Question 6e If No, please explain. Visitor groups reasons as to why their expectations were not met included: Boring/not interesting Sites were not pointed out No restrooms at the train station Would not honor AAA discounts Question 7a Prior to this visit, were you and your group aware that you can combine a one-way bicycle ride along the Towpath Trail with a return trip by CVSR train with your bicycle? 51% of visitor groups were not aware of the combined one-way bicycle ride with a return trip on the CVSR train (see Figure 33). Aware of one-way bicycle trip with a CVSR train return? Yes No Not sure N=883 visitor groups** 2% 48% 51% 0 100 200 300 400 500 48% were aware of the combined ride. Figure 33: Visitor group awareness of a combined one-way bicycle ride with a return trip on the CVSR train 33

Question 7b Would you and your group members consider taking such combined bicycle/train trip in the future? 56% of visitor groups would consider taking a combined bike/train ride in the future (see Figure 34). 25% would not consider such a ride. Consider taking bike/train ride in the future? Yes, likely No, unlikely Not sure N=879 visitor groups 19% 25% 0 100 200 300 400 500 56% Figure 34: Visitor groups who would consider taking a bicycle/train trip in the future Question 7c Would you and your group members be interested in riding the train between the park and Cleveland (either way) if such service existed? 57% of visitor groups were in interested in riding the train between the park and Cleveland (see Figure 35). 24% were not sure. 19% were not interested. Interested in riding the train to/from park and Cleveland? Yes, likely No, unlikely Not sure N=873 visitor groups 19% 24% 0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 35: Visitor groups who would consider riding the train between the park and Cleveland 57% 34

Awareness and support for the Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association Question 8a Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association (CVNPA) is a friends group that supports Cuyahoga Valley NP through educational programs, awareness, and funding. Prior to this visit, were you aware of the CVNPA? 52% of visitor groups were not aware of the CVNPA prior to this visit (see Figure 36). Aware of Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association? Yes No Not sure N=879 visitor groups 5% 43% 52% 0 100 200 300 400 500 43% were aware of the organization. Figure 36: Visitor groups awareness of Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association prior to visit Question 8b Are you or any of your personal group a member of the CVNPA? 91% of visitor groups did not have anyone in their personal group who was a member of CVNPA (see Figure 37). 9% had members in their personal group that were members of the CVNPA. Any members of CVNPA in your personal group? No Yes N=875 visitor groups 9% 0 200 400 600 800 91% Figure 37: Any members of your personal group a member of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association? Question 8c If No, would you be interested in joining or supporting the CVNPA? 36% of visitor groups were unlikely to join or support the CVNPA (see Figure 38). Interesting in joining or supporting CVNPA? N=792 visitor groups Yes, likely 18% No, unlikely Not sure 36% 46% 46% were not sure. 18% were likely. 0 100 200 300 400 Figure 38: Would you be interested in joining or supporting the CVNPA? 35

Question 8d If No, why not? As shown in Table 20, reasons for not joining or supporting the CVNPA include: 57% Not enough time 54% Live elsewhere 45% Other commitments Table 20: Reasons for not joining or supporting the CVNPA N=240 comments Number of times Reason mentioned Not enough time 57 Live elsewhere 54 Other commitments 45 No interest 29 Money 28 Disagree with policies 7 Pay taxes 6 Unaware 6 Support in other ways 3 Don't know 3 Other comments 2 36

Sites visited on this visit Question 13a For this visit, please check all of the Cuyahoga Valley NP sites and partner sites below that you and your group visited. 69% of groups visited the Towpath Trail (see Figure 39). 2 visited the Canal Visitor Center. 2 visited the Boston Store. Other sites visited (9%) by visitor groups included: Akron Zoo Bath Road Blossom Music Center Boston Mills Skiing Brecksville Reservation Buckeye Trail Blue Hen Falls Carriage Trail Chagrin Falls Gorge Overlook Hale Farm Indio Lake MD Garage North Station Pine Hollow Stan Hywett Sylvan Lake Szalay s Farm Towpath Trail Canal Visitor Center Boston Store Virginia Kendall Park Brandywine Falls Other trails Site Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad Peninsula Depot Visitor Center Happy Days Visitor Center Frazee House Everett Road Covered Bridge Hunt Farm Visitor Information Center Countryside Farmers' Market Stanford Hostel Inn at Brandywine Falls Other N=764 visitor groups** 2% 1% 7% 6% 6% 3% 12% 12% 1 9% 2 18% 16% 14% 2 69% 0 200 400 600 Figure 39: Sites visited on this visit 37

Quality of sites visited Question 13b For only those Cuyahoga Valley NP sites and partner sites that you and your group visited on this visit, please rate the quality from 1-5. Figure 40 shows the combined proportions of very good and good quality ratings for the sites visited that were rated by enough visitor groups (N!30). The sites receiving the highest combined proportions of very good and good quality ratings were: 98% Brandywine Falls 96% Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad Table 21 displays the quality ratings for all sites. The site that received the highest very poor rating was Everett Road Covered Bridge (5%). N=number of visitor groups who rated each service/facility. Brandywine Falls Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad Canal Visitor Center Frazee House 98%, N=100 96%, N=68 95%, N=127 95%, N=38 Service/ facility Towpath Trail Boston Store 95%, N=489 92%, N=131 Other trails 92%, N=94 Virginia Kendall Park Everett Road Covered Bridge Peninsula Depot Visitor Center Hunt Farm Visitor Information Center Happy Days Visitor Center 91%, N=119 9, N=38 88%, N=73 85%, N=39 84%, N=59 0 25 50 75 100 Proportions of respondents Figure 40: Combined proportions of very good and good quality ratings 38